CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147
CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST
DELOS SANTOS
VS. JARRA,
G. R. NO.
L-4150, 10 FEBRUARY 1910, 15 PHIL. 147
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
In a contract of
commodatum whereby one of the parties thereto delivers to the other a thing
that is not perishable, to be used for a certain time and afterwards returned,
it is the imperative duty of the bailee, if he should be unable to return the
thing itself to the owner, to pay damages to the latter if, through the fault
of the bailee, the thing loaned was lost or destroyed, inasmuch as the bailor
retains the ownership thereof.
FACTS
On
the 1st of September, 1906, Felix de los Santos brought suit against Agustina
Jarra, the administratrix of the estate of Magdaleno Jimenea, alleging that in
the latter part of 1901 Jimenea borrowed and obtained from the plaintiff ten
first-class carabaos, to be used at the animal-power mill of his hacienda
during the season of 1901-2, without recompense or remuneration whatever for
the use thereof, under the sole condition that they should be returned to the
owner as soon as the work at the mill was terminated.
Magdaleno
Jimenea, however, did not return the carabaos, notwithstanding the fact that
the plaintiff claimed their return after the work at the mill was finished. our
died of rinderpest, and it is for this reason that the judgment appealed from
only deals with six surviving carabaos.
ISSUE
Whether
defendant is under obligation to indemnify the owner thereof by paying him
their value.
RULING
The
court held in the affirmative.
The
court held that in a contract of commodatum whereby one of the parties thereto
delivers to the other a thing that is not perishable, to be used for a certain
time and afterwards returned, it is the imperative duty of the bailee, if he
should be unable to return the thing itself to the owner, to pay damages to the
latter if, through the fault of the bailee, the thing loaned was lost or
destroyed, inasmuch as the bailor retains the ownership thereof.
Here,
the court held that the carabaos delivered to be used not being returned by the
defendant upon demand, there is no doubt that she is under obligation to
indemnify the owner thereof by paying him their value.